• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you support Partial Birth Abortion if the mother's life is not endangered?

Do you support partial birth abortion if the mother's life is not endangered?

  • Yes, a mother should have the right to abort anytime during pregnancy.

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • No, PBA is a barbaric act.

    Votes: 20 87.0%

  • Total voters
    23
Korimyr the Rat said:
I didn't vote in the poll.

I support partial birth abortion conditionally. While I am generally on the extreme end of the pro-choice spectrum-- I think taxpayer funding of abortion saves us money in Welfare and law enforcement-- I do not think that abortion should be elective beyond a certain point, generally the 26th week.
And at that part, an abortion would be per induction anyway, What the pro-lifers call "pba," the D&X procedure, that one is a SECOND-TRIMESTER procedure.

However, I believe that if it is necessary for the mother's health or there is evidence of serious deformity or genetic defect, late term or partial birth abortion should be allowed.
In 3rd trimester, the diameter of the fetal torso is to great for the D&X to provide meaningful benefit vs simple induction which is much easier to do. So "late term partial birth abortion" really is pure fiction, unless seen in reality of the D&X procedure.

It just wasn't dramatic enough for pro-lifers so they had a need to lie, even about this.
 
Blue Collar Joe said:
Lets put it in a nutshell, then. You have the right to decide if you want to have the babies brains sucked out while it twitches, partially out of the womb. Gross description, but that is exactly what a partial birth abortion is.
There are no babies, they are second-trimester fetuses. They are mindless tissue.

In the case of the mother's health, I won't say a word.
So you disagree with the law up for review, because it did NOT have such a concern as her health.
 
aps said:
Me too. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on it. Roe vs. Wade leaves open the possibility of banning late term abortions. The thing that the Supreme Court will strike down is the undue burden this law will impose on a pregnant women who has health risks. Whether they strike down the entire law or not remains to be known.
 
And at that part, an abortion would be per induction anyway, What the pro-lifers call "pba," the D&X procedure, that one is a SECOND-TRIMESTER procedure

Do you even know what happens when a PBA takes place?


A baby that is viable outside the womb is pulled out of the body and its head is crushed and its brains are sucked out........

That is why it is called Partial Birth Abortion........
 
Navy Pride said:
That is why it is called Partial Birth Abortion........

From what I can tell prochoicers will argue that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term and doctors don't use it to describe any procedure.

My answer to that is doctors don't bill for or refer to "nose jobs" either. Nose job is not a medical term but we all know what it is. Get over it.
 
Navy Pride said:
Do you even know what happens when a PBA takes place?
I know what happens when a D&X takes place.

A baby that is viable outside the womb is pulled out of the body and its head is crushed and its brains are sucked out........
That is not the description of the existing 2nd trimester procedure. It is not at the viable stage, and it is not a baby. So what you are spewing is a pro-life deception.

That is why it is called Partial Birth Abortion........
Yes, pro-life, revisionist linguistic hyperbole is generally based on lies and misrepresentations just like this.
 
talloulou said:
From what I can tell prochoicers will argue that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term and doctors don't use it to describe any procedure.

My answer to that is doctors don't bill for or refer to "nose jobs" either. Nose job is not a medical term but we all know what it is. Get over it.
But as you can see above, what pro-lifers describe under this term is an outright lie, so no it does not exist.
 
I think late term abortions are quite rare, statistically. I'll admit that concrete statistics on abortion are difficult, if not impossible, to accurately guage in numbers. But no woman is going to wait until the last trimester to have an abortion, if she can help it. I've read stories where some women aren't even aware they're pregnant until the 15th week...putting the pregnancy in the second trimester.

I don't believe any man has the right to tell any woman what she can or can't do with her body. The one statistic that I believe is accurate is a majority of abortions are performed on women who make less then $15,000 a year...women who are single, or with husbands who have disappeared. Women who work equal jobs for less pay then men, women who are expected to be perfect mothers, home educators, maids, cooks and whores in the bedroom, while their husbands are having affairs.

I think it would be interesting to know how these anti-abortion members of congress voted on welfare reform and all programs designed to help the poor?

The rich and well to do will always be able to have their abortions.

If abortion is outlawed, and you're a member of Congress, and your little blue eyed blonde haired daughter gets pregnant by rape or incest, are you telling me that you won't fly your little daughter out of the country to have an abortion? Hypocrites.

It's the poor and less fortunate that will be subjected to the back alleys.

No one wants to have to go through a medical procedure. I recently had the latest rage in medical procedures...a colonoscopy...you think I was happy about that? LOL Hell no! But at least I know I don't have colon cancer.

Anyway, the bottom line should be...this is a decision between a patient and their doctor. Keep big government out of our lives. Isn't that supposed to be the republican mantra?
 
Hoot said:
I think late term abortions are quite rare, statistically. I'll admit that concrete statistics on abortion are difficult, if not impossible, to accurately guage in numbers. But no woman is going to wait until the last trimester to have an abortion, if she can help it. I've read stories where some women aren't even aware they're pregnant until the 15th week...putting the pregnancy in the second trimester.

I don't believe any man has the right to tell any woman what she can or can't do with her body. The one statistic that I believe is accurate is a majority of abortions are performed on women who make less then $15,000 a year...women who are single, or with husbands who have disappeared. Women who work equal jobs for less pay then men, women who are expected to be perfect mothers, home educators, maids, cooks and whores in the bedroom, while their husbands are having affairs.

I think it would be interesting to know how these anti-abortion members of congress voted on welfare reform and all programs designed to help the poor?

The rich and well to do will always be able to have their abortions.

If abortion is outlawed, and you're a member of Congress, and your little blue eyed blonde haired daughter gets pregnant by rape or incest, are you telling me that you won't fly your little daughter out of the country to have an abortion? Hypocrites.

It's the poor and less fortunate that will be subjected to the back alleys.

No one wants to have to go through a medical procedure. I recently had the latest rage in medical procedures...a colonoscopy...you think I was happy about that? LOL Hell no! But at least I know I don't have colon cancer.

Anyway, the bottom line should be...this is a decision between a patient and their doctor. Keep big government out of our lives. Isn't that supposed to be the republican mantra?

overturning RvW would not outlaw abortion
it would only outlaw abortion on demand
therefor your points regarding such, are moot

to compare a colonoscopy to abortion is LUDICRIOUS

where pro-lifers stand is that it is not about a womans body
it is about the life insider her
and since she did not conceive that life alone, the other person, the father has just as much right in the decision as to what happens to his offspring

most, or maybe i should say alot, objections to abortion by the prolifers would be put aside IF the abomination of Abortion on demand being used for birth control would stop
 
DeeJayH said:
overturning RvW would not outlaw abortion
it would only outlaw abortion on demand
therefor your points regarding such, are moot
Nope. You arestill pushing control oand oppression of women.

to compare a colonoscopy to abortion is LUDICRIOUS
Nope. Both are classified as outpatient surgical procedures.

where pro-lifers stand is that it is not about a womans body
it is about the life insider her
DUH! Yes, we already know that you don't give a damn about the women.

and since she did not conceive that life alone, the other person, the father has just as much right in the decision as to what happens to his offspring
Once it is no longer exclusively using her bodily resources. Until then, he has no say over her body.

most, or maybe i should say alot, objections to abortion by the prolifers would be put aside IF the abomination of Abortion on demand being used for birth control would stop
Nonsense. Pro-life are all about not allowing the woman to abort.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I didn't vote in the poll.

I support partial birth abortion conditionally. While I am generally on the extreme end of the pro-choice spectrum-- I think taxpayer funding of abortion saves us money in Welfare and law enforcement-- I do not think that abortion should be elective beyond a certain point, generally the 26th week.

However, I believe that if it is necessary for the mother's health or there is evidence of serious deformity or genetic defect, late term or partial birth abortion should be allowed.


So what you're saying is that it's okay to shoot retards if it will save us money. After all, there's no moral difference between killing a baby in the womb, killing it when it's stopped half-way out, and killing it when it's two years old, or twenty.
 
Pro abortion types don't like to hear it called Partial Birth abortion becasue it is such a barbaric act.............When a PBA is performed the baby is actually viable outside the womb.........Its head is crushed and its brains are sucked out........


It allows the pro abortion types to sleep better at night.......
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
On the other hand, the Right believes that fetuses are innocent children and are entitled to the full legal protection thereof-- but are usually willing to make an exception for rape and incest, and they aren't willing to stop pregnant women from poisoning their unborn children.

Personally, I don't think there's any other single issue in American politics more marked by cowardice, hypocrisy, and inconsistent moral reasoning-- on whichever side of the debate you happen to choose.


No, the baby didn't cause the rape and shouldn't be punished for it. Besides which, capital punishment is never an authorized penalty for rapists, so why should it be applied to a person that didn't exist when the crime was committed? Yeah, it's pretty rough on the rape victim, I won't deny it, but it's a hell of a lot rougher on the baby. They're both innocent, after all.

As for preventing the incubator from ingesting/shooting up/smoking poisons, how do you recommend we address that problem? I'm would argue that any incubator delivering a crack addicted baby, and HIV infected baby, a baby with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or other such problem should be sterilized and thus fired from her position as an incubator.

Frankly, if the incubator doesn't want to be an incubator, there's absolutely no reason why she had to become one. There's the word "no", for instance. It works wonders in reducing the ranks of active incubators. There's pills, implants, raincoats, fake moles with hair growing in them, failure to take showers for months on end, EVERY WAY you can imagine to prevent sperm from reaching the incubator's eggs. If the incubator is too stupid to use them, well...ITS STILL NOT THE BABY'S FAULT.

The incubator's choice to not correctly use the means available to it to prevent pregnancy means she's made the choice to risk becoming pregnant. In Las Vegas when people risk their money, and lose, they don't get their money back. In the real world, incubators that risk getting knocked up shouldn't be allowed to murder to escape the penalty of their stupidity.
 
Last edited:
This procedure is not an abortion. It is INFANTICIDE and should be treated as such. The mothers health exemption is BS.
 
Navy Pride said:
Pro abortion types don't like to hear it called Partial Birth abortion becasue it is such a barbaric act.............
Hmm, who are those pro-abortion types you are talking about? The pro-choice people knows what it is and some accept it while tohers don't. Your silly and stupid hyperbole about being barbaric would apply much better to the pro-life enslavement and oppression of women.

When a PBA is performed the baby is actually viable outside the womb.........
You are lying. It is not a baby, and it is not viable.

It allows the pro abortion types to sleep better at night.......
Hmm, again who are they, these people with insomnia problems?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, the baby
There is no baby.

didn't cause the rape and shouldn't be punished for it
There is no more "punishment" involved than their is in your killing bacteria by taking antibiotics or washing your hands. Your post is silly hyperbole.

. Besides which, capital punishment is never an authorized penalty for rapists, so why should it be applied to a person that didn't exist when the crime was committed?
It isn't. The embryo is not a person, your deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

Yeah, it's pretty rough on the rape victim, I won't deny it, but it's a hell of a lot rougher on the baby. They're both innocent, after all.
There is no baby, and the embryo is no more "innocent" than a parasite f.ex. is.

s for preventing the incubator from ......
And now we witness the pro-life misogynistic, hate mongering "pro-fault ugly head rising; the push for enslavement and oppression for not living up to the moralistic theocracy that the fundie pro-faulter pro-lifers want to push on everybody else.
 
JOHNYJ said:
This procedure is not an abortion. It is INFANTICIDE and should be treated as such. The mothers health exemption is BS.
Infants most assuredly are born, making your claim silly and stupid.
 
steen said:
Hmm, who are those pro-abortion types you are talking about? The pro-choice people knows what it is and some accept it while tohers don't. Your silly and stupid hyperbole about being barbaric would apply much better to the pro-life enslavement and oppression of women.

You are lying. It is not a baby, and it is not viable.

Hmm, again who are they, these people with insomnia problems?

1. Pro abortion, Pro choice, its the same thing, you both want to butcher babies in the womb.......

2. I hope that helps you to sleep better at night to believe that........

3. Surely not you, you have no problem with butchring in the womb.......
 
steen said:
There is no baby.

There is no more "punishment" involved than their is in your killing bacteria by taking antibiotics or washing your hands. Your post is silly hyperbole.

It isn't. The embryo is not a person, your deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

There is no baby, and the embryo is no more "innocent" than a parasite f.ex. is.

And now we witness the pro-life misogynistic, hate mongering "pro-fault ugly head rising; the push for enslavement and oppression for not living up to the moralistic theocracy that the fundie pro-faulter pro-lifers want to push on everybody else.
and here you have the rantings of somebody that has probably already had his offspirng MURDERED by the ho he stuck his willy in. so he is convinced slaughtereing a baby at any time is no big deal, because if he didnt, he would have to deal wiht the ramification
 
Navy Pride said:
1. Pro abortion, Pro choice, its the same thing, you both want to butcher babies in the womb.......
Your claim remains as false as dishonest as always, showing your lack of integrity.

2. I hope that helps you to sleep better at night to believe that........
I sleep fine knowing my position is based on facts rather than the pro-life idea of lies and hyperbole as 'evidence."

3. Surely not you, you have no problem with butchring in the womb.......
I don't understand your remark. Could you try without the silly hyperbole?
 
DeeJayH said:
++
Pot, allow me to introduce the kettle
Thanks you for supporting my very liberal contry of birth, where homosexuality has been openly endorsed for decades, and where the unions of any loving couple has been legally sanctioned for several dozen years. It is a very falshy flag there in your avatar picture.

Did you know that Denmark has the world's longest-lasting monarchy and the oldest flag in the world, and will endure much after the US with all its holier-than-thou bigoted moralism has fallen into the sea?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So what you're saying is that it's okay to shoot retards if it will save us money. After all, there's no moral difference between killing a baby in the womb, killing it when it's stopped half-way out, and killing it when it's two years old, or twenty.

Yes, there is a moral difference.

A child of two or a man of twenty is a member of society; he has been born, accepted into a family, and either partially or fully raised. The child of two has parents who are morally responsible for his well-being, and the man of twenty has himself.

As for the child half-way out of the womb, I am against unconditional abortion rights because if you pull the baby the rest of the way out of the womb, there are people lined up around the block waiting for the chance to adopt that baby. If the baby's healthy, I think the State should stand at the end of that line-- if only to hold him for the next available family.

However, until that child has been accepted into a family-- taken home or adopted-- that child has no moral claim to protection whatsoever. And, until the child is capable of being separated from his mother and surviving, noone is capable of claiming that responsibility except for the mother.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, the baby didn't cause the rape and shouldn't be punished for it.

Congratulations. You are more morally consistent than the majority of anti-abortionists-- and the majority of the pro-choice movement, for that matter. (By the way, I don't refer to myself as "pro-choice" because I consider that the position of people who think it's immoral, but aren't willing to stand up to it.)

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
As for preventing the incubator from ingesting/shooting up/smoking poisons, how do you recommend we address that problem?

I recommend we leave it alone. A woman who gives birth to a child with FAS or a drug addiction is an unfit mother (State's discretion whether or not to press charges) and shouldn't be allowed to claim the child; if someone else steps up to raise the child, so be it, but if noone else is willing, I don't think the State should be required to do so.

If noone is willing to claim a newborn child-- i.e. one that has not been previously claimed-- then it is better to euthanize than to allow them to die of starvation or thirst. Can't force someone to raise a child.

Please note, since I can hear you objecting already, that this does not apply to a child who has been previously claimed and then subsequently abandoned. That child is a member of society, and if no parent can be found, should become a Ward of the State, until such time as they can take responsibility for their own support.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Frankly, if the incubator doesn't want to be an incubator, there's absolutely no reason why she had to become one. There's ... EVERY WAY you can imagine to prevent sperm from reaching the incubator's eggs.

Not a single method you listed is foolproof.

In any event, conception is too unpredictable-- even when "planned"-- to consider consent to sex to be the same as consent to pregnancy. Since you cannot force someone to raise a child-- it's simply impossible-- I think it's only logical that you shouldn't be able to force someone to bear one.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
(By the way, I don't refer to myself as "pro-choice" because I consider that the position of people who think it's immoral, but aren't willing to stand up to it.)
Utter nonsense. There is nothing immoral about abortions. That blows your idea of us all as hypocrites.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes, there is a moral difference.

A child of two or a man of twenty is a member of society; he has been born, accepted into a family, and either partially or fully raised. The child of two has parents who are morally responsible for his well-being, and the man of twenty has himself.

Since you can't define a time when that "child" becomes a human being, outside of the instant of conception, you're parsing of the definition to establish an artificial and meaningless boundary solely to establish a convenient basis for the justification of slaughter those that do not meet your new artificial definition, you're not actually qualified to discuss morality.

Korimyr the Rat said:
As for the child half-way out of the womb, I am against unconditional abortion rights because if you pull the baby the rest of the way out of the womb, there are people lined up around the block waiting for the chance to adopt that baby. If the baby's healthy, I think the State should stand at the end of that line-- if only to hold him for the next available family.

I'm sorry, this paragragh is not consistent with your earlier quibbling that maybe sometimes perhaps it's okay to kill a partially birthed child. Oh. You didn't use the word "child". Silly me.

Korimyr the Rat said:
However, until that child has been accepted into a family-- taken home or adopted-- that child has no moral claim to protection whatsoever. And, until the child is capable of being separated from his mother and surviving, noone is capable of claiming that responsibility except for the mother.

Oh. That's an interesting notion. So you're saying the incubator can deny responsibility for the thing she gave birth to, and that under no circumstance should any penalties be applied to any incubator that leaves her hatchling in a dumpster to die. And you're trying to discuss what's moral and what's not?

Korimyr the Rat said:
Congratulations. You are more morally consistent than the majority of anti-abortionists-- and the majority of the pro-choice movement, for that matter. (By the way, I don't refer to myself as "pro-choice" because I consider that the position of people who think it's immoral, but aren't willing to stand up to it.)

Yeah, I know I am.

Korimyr the Rat said:
I recommend we leave it alone. A woman who gives birth to a child with FAS or a drug addiction is an unfit mother (State's discretion whether or not to press charges) and shouldn't be allowed to claim the child; if someone else steps up to raise the child, so be it, but if noone else is willing, I don't think the State should be required to do so.

By your earlier statement, if no one claims the child it's perfectly valied to toss it in the trash compactor. In fact, "if noone else is willing, I don't think the State should be required to do so" means nothing if not that the baby should be abandoned.

Korimyr the Rat said:
If noone is willing to claim a newborn child-- i.e. one that has not been previously claimed-- then it is better to euthanize than to allow them to die of starvation or thirst. Can't force someone to raise a child.

At least you're not dancing around the issue. I give you credit for having the guts to say it out loud. You're wrong. You're an amoral SOB, but you do have convictions.

Korimyr the Rat said:
Please note, since I can hear you objecting already, that this does not apply to a child who has been previously claimed and then subsequently abandoned. That child is a member of society, and if no parent can be found, should become a Ward of the State, until such time as they can take responsibility for their own support.

What does "previously" claimed mean? Is that like when you refuse to make the final payment on a layaway item at K-Mart? So, you're not ruling out that an incubator can give birth outside of a hospital and make a dumpster donation. After all, the birthing female in question has never "claimed" the child, right?

Korimyr the Rat said:
Not a single method you listed is foolproof.

In any event, conception is too unpredictable-- even when "planned"-- to consider consent to sex to be the same as consent to pregnancy. Since you cannot force someone to raise a child-- it's simply impossible-- I think it's only logical that you shouldn't be able to force someone to bear one.

That's not right. Saying "no" and meaning it is very fool proof. Regardless that no other method is perfect, the manufacturers of the others inform the purchaser of that fact. The user makes a conscious decision to accept the risk when they use the product. That makes them responsible for the consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom